Dismissed

Saddam Hussain S/O Bashasab Pailwan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CRL.P/100540/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. sought bail for an accused in a theft case involving stolen buffaloes and cattle. The High Court dismissed the bail plea, citing the petitioner's status as a habitual offender, recovery of incriminating materials, and the ongoing trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Trial Court directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.

Saddam Hussain S/O Bashasab Pailwan Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100540 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SADDAM HUSSAIN SON OF BASHASAB PAILWAN AGE:21 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/O BYALWADAGI TQ:MUNDARGI DIST:GADAG – 582 101

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:M.H.PATIL, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY YELBURGA POLICE STATION REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD – 590 011

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI: RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.40 OF 2020 (CC NO.244 OF 2020) OF YELBURGA POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, YELBURGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 380 AND 457 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.40 of 2020 of Yelburga Police Station, Koppal initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri.Mounesh.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant lodged the first information on 27.04.2020 stating that in between 26.04.2020 to 27.04.2020, two buffaloes and two cattle's, which were in the cow shed in his land situated in Banakoppa village, were stolen by breaking open the lock of the shed. Even after searching, he could not get the cattle’s and requested the police to trace the buffaloes and cattle’s which were totally valued Rs.88,000/-. The police registered the case against unknown persons and took up investigation. It is stated that during investigation, the police found that it was accused Nos.1 to 3 who have criminally trespassed into

¶21

¶22

the shed by breaking open the lock and committed theft of livestocks and have committed the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of IPC.

¶23

Heard Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State through video conferencing. Perused the materials on record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. Even though CWs.1 and 8 are cited as eye witnesses, only while filing charge sheet, this petitioner is arrayed as accused. There are no materials to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. Only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Now the matter is pending before the Trial Court and some of the witnesses are already examined. This petitioner was apprehended on 26.05.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. His detention in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident

¶25

¶26

of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that the present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is a habitual offender, against whom Crime No.58 of 2020 of Kanakagiri Police Station, Crime No.196 of 2019 and 174 of 2019 of Munirabad Police Station, Crime No.199 of 2019 of Koppal Rural Police Station are registered for having committed similar offence. He also submitted that incriminating materials, such as, jeep belonging to accused No.1, motor cycle belonging to accused No.2, two mobiles and cash from accused No.3 were recovered at their instances. Now the charge sheet is also filed. Strong prima facie materials are placed before this Court. If this petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may commit similar offence and may abscond. Examination of the witnesses has already begun before the Trial Court. It is not safe to enlarge the petitioner on bail,

¶28

¶29

especially looking to the previous conduct of the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

In light of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶31

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶32

to be released on bail?”

¶33

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶34

REASONS

¶35

The allegation against the present petitioner is

¶36

that he committed lurking house trespass, break open the door of the cow shed belonging to the informant and had stolen two buffaloes and two cattle. Even though, FIR was registered against unknown persons, during investigation the jeep and motor cycle used in the commission of offence are

¶37

said to have been seized by the police. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that four such cases are registered against the present petitioner for having committed similar offences. Now the matter is pending for trial before

¶38

¶39

the Trial Court. It is stated that some of the witnesses are already examined. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to enlarge the accused on bail at this stage. Hence, I answer the above point in ‘Negative’.

¶40

The Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶41

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the case in an expeditious manner.

¶42

Since the trial has begun, the Trial Court shall make all endeavor to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

¶43

It is needless to state that both the prosecution as well

¶44

as accused shall assist the Court in disposing of the matter at

¶45

an early date.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

*bgn/-

Saddam Hussain S/O Bashasab Pailwan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Hussain S/O Bashasab Pailwan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Milind S/O Tanaji Kadolkar Vs Shri. Naveed S/O Nazafali Khatib

Saresh K P @ Suresh S/O K.P.Dinesh Vs Suresh Babu S/O Sathyanarayana Rao

Sri. Kumar S/O Maruti Hanamikki Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruti Balu Kitawadakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka